Remanded

Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2018WRIC/67576/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's fire arm license issued to him solely on the ground of registration of three criminal cases where he had been acquitted, directing the licensing authority to pass a fresh order recording specific reasons under Section 17 of the Arms Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 16.04.2010 and 06.10.2010 set aside and matter remitted to licensing authority to pass a fresh order.

Balbir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 67576 of 2010

¶3

Petitioner :- Balbir Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Mishra,A.K. Srivastava,A.P.Singh Raghav,Vijay Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the Licensing Authority/ District Magistrate-Bulandshahr by which that authority has cancelled the fire arm license of the petitioner. That order has been confirmed by the petitioner by his order dated 06.10.2010.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the license of the petitioner had been cancelled on the solitary ground of registration of one criminal case lodged against him being Case Crime No. 340 of 2007 under Sections 452, 323,/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act (S.T. No. 1123/2008); Case Crime No. 361 of 2007 under Sections 302/34, 120B and 201 IPC.

¶7

Short submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that fire arm license of the petitioner had been cancelled only on account of three criminal cases having been registered against him. In that regard, it has been submitted that the petitioner had been acquitted in all three criminal cases. Copies of the orders passed by the petitioner in those cases have been annexed by the supplementary affidavit filed in this petition.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the registration of three criminal cases establishes the fact that the petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents. He further states, the petitioner had been acquitted on the ground of certain witnesses having turned hostile. In such circumstances, it has been submitted that the cancellation of the license was valid.

¶9

Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

¶10

The licensing authority had cancelled the fire arm license solely on the ground of three criminal cases and no other independent reason had been recorded by the licensing authority in the order dated 16.04.2010.

¶11

Only by way of inference, it has been recorded that therefore the license in favour of the petitioner may not be in the interest

¶12

of justice, public peace and public safety.

¶13

The fire arm license may not be cancelled solely for reason of registration of criminal case against the licensee. For a valid cancellation order, reasons are required to be recorded in terms of section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. To that extent, mere registration of a criminal case is not sufficient to cancel the fire arm licence. However, for the purpose of reaching a fresh conclusion in that regard, all material as may be existing relevant to section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, including the material dealt with by the criminal court may be considered by the licensing authority.

¶14

Therefore, without making any observation as to fact as may prejudice the proceedings, the impugned orders dated 16.04.2010 and 06.10.2010 cannot be sustained and are set aside. The matter is remitted to the licensing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after calling for fresh detailed report/s as regards factors enumerated in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1950, in light of all material as may be existing, including the criminal trials that stand concluded.

¶15

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 14.12.2018 S.Chaurasia

Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhoom Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri 1008 Parshavnath Digambar Jain Mandir Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vakilu Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra and 39 Others Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner Noida and 03 Others

Vilok Pal Vs State of U P and 2 Others